Terrorism trial lawyers face curbs

Page Tools

Defence lawyers in terrorist trials may be forced to undergo security clearances and security-sensitive evidence may be withheld from an accused person and their legal team, under laws proposed by the Federal Government.

The proposals have raised concerns from the Law Council of Australia, which warned that they threatened to undermine the principle of open justice.

The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who has for months indicated his intention to introduce secrecy measures into trials involving national security, unveiled the new laws yesterday before the release of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into the issue.

His spokesman said it was done out of a concern to have the laws in place by the end of the current Parliament, before the election is called later this year.

The proposed laws would apply to trials involving terrorism, espionage and treason.

They would give the Attorney-General the power to issue a certificate when it was considered that evidence about to be introduced into court could prejudice national security.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

That certificate would then be ruled on by a judge in a closed hearing. The accused person's lawyer might be excluded from that hearing.

If the judge approved the certificate, the evidence - whether a document or a witness's answer - could be censored, and part of it withheld from the defence team.

The proposed laws would also allow the Government to order a defence lawyer to undergo a security clearance. If the lawyer refused, he or she would be denied access to information affecting national security.

The recent trial of the former spy Simon Lappas had made the new laws necessary, Mr Ruddock said yesterday. Without them, the Government could be forced to abandon a trial if proceeding with it meant disclosing security-sensitive information.

Labor's spokesman on homeland security, Robert McClelland, said the Opposition "recognises the need for legislative reform in the area of protecting classified and security-sensitive information in court proceedings".

He said Labor would examine the bill and "make a final decision on the merits and in the national interest".

The Law Council's president, Bob Gotterson, QC, objected to the proposal to make defence lawyers undergo security checks.

"What this security clearance proposal means is that you will not be able to choose your own lawyer if your case has national security overtones - you can only see a lawyer approved by officials appointed by the government of the day," he said.

"The potential for discrimination here is grave - every citizen should be able to choose their own lawyer, and every lawyer should be free to act."

Mr Gotterson said denying a defence team access to evidence which could be used against the accused "strikes a blow at the principle of open justice".

He said there was "an element of over-reaction" in the proposals.

Under the proposals, any lawyer or party who disclosed information covered by a certificate to another person could be jailed for two years.

The Government also introduced draft laws yesterday allowing police and security agencies to read or listen to "stored communications", such as email and voicemail, without the need for a telecommunications warrant.